The recently released Adonis Review, a key plank of Labour's emerging policy platform tries to present a comprehensive strategy for national economic renewal without any apparent thought to how this strategy chimes with the other unavoidable story of our time; decarbonisation. Some may have barely noticed this oversight, or think they are completely separate things, but if you are motivated by dealing with climate change as the Labour party still claims to be, this disconnect is little short of embarrasing.

I'm sure the Adonis Review was the product of diligent research and careful political judgment, but I reach for the word 'embarassing' because the review is a particularly striking example of policy blindness that should no longer be considered permissable; it is simply not sane to continue presenting economic policy as if it was not also energy and environmental policy.

There are some timely ideas about economic decentralisation in the report, many of which echo the emphasis in RSA's City Growth Commission about spreading the skills and infrastructure required for economic development beyond London.

It's an ethical and intellectual derliction of duty to present economic and industrial policy without even paying lip service to the idea of ecological constraints and the need for a transition away from fossil fuels.

But here's what is missing (I am grateful to an RSA fellow for this list:)

"- any mention of global climate change;

- any mention of planetary boundaries and global resource constraints;

In short, for those with even the slightest inkling of the connection between the economy and the world's ecological constraints, there is no analysis or vision to believe in. In 2014, you really shouldn't be able to get away with that! It's an ethical and intellectual derliction of duty to present economic and industrial policy without even paying lip service to the idea of ecological constraints and the need for a transition away from fossil fuels.

Perhaps the people behind the policy review would say they deal with environmental and energy issues elsewhere, which, to my mind, makes things even worse. I look forward to seeing how they do that, and how it connects to industrial strategy, but already it's a huge conceptual mistake to seperate these things out - it suggests a fundamental misreading of how to join up prospective government policy, avoid unintendended consequences, and plan for a viable future.

The saddest part of this story is that Lord Adonis ends his introduction to the report in a way that might have been inspiring:

"Governments can no longer spend their way out of difficulty. My overriding aim is to promote a smarter, not a more expensive, state. We need to build on the best of Britain – the spirit of the industrial revolution – and be optimistic that the best is yet to come."

That sounds like a good technocratic charm offensive at first blush, but then it hit me: the 'spirit' of the industrial revolution would not have achieved much without the coal of the industrial revolution. You can't blame eighteenth and ninteenth century industrialists for making the most of the available fossil fuels, which no doubt kept their spirits up as the money kept rolling in.

But six years after the 2008 Climate Change Act which commits the UK to reducing national greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 relative to 1990, which was expressly designed to decarbonise the economy and which was brought into law by then Secretary of State Ed Miliband(!) one would have hoped - in a Labour Party policy review document - for at least a passing reference to the connection between industrial strategy and the need to decarbonise the economy.

The tragedy is that herein lies the missed opportunity for the Labour party and the country as a whole. There is a Social Democratic tradition of community energy that should be part of the story, and there is obviously an R&D investment story in renewable infrasructure to be told.

So by all means celebrate the spirit of industrial development, but if there is going to be another industrial revolution in the 21st century, as Jeremy Rifkind and many other have argued is necessary, it has to be qualitatively different kind of story.

What is called for is not a revolution that is utterly and unselfconsciously dependent upon a particular kind of energy that we now know to be toxic to planetary systems, but rather a revolution driven and shaped by the urgeny of a transition away from that, informed by our shared need for an economy powered - as soon as possible- by renewable energy. If we can work towards that, we might genuinely keep 'the spirit of the industrial revolution' alive.

You might also like

The fascinating thing about today's growth data is what it tells us about the rather painful birth of a new type of UK economy. Before the Crash of 2008, growth in the UK was largely driven by public spending, construction ...

Every Budget debate is a category error. The notion that decisions taken by a centralised, structured body like government can have a seamless impact on a dispersed, self-organising system like the economy is one of the ...

23
Comments

Join the discussion

Thanks for that long and thoughtful reply. I won't reply in detail until I've read the whole report and your other reference on Clumsy Solutions.

I wasn't after your complete data, but simply the question(s) which divided your different subsample(s) into believers/warmists and sceptics/deniers, together with basic information like sample size and percentages responses to each question.

From what you say above, it seems that your “deniers” are not sceptics at all, but rather a subset of believers who don't live up to their beliefs in some way – people displaying some kind of cognitive dissonance, in other words.

You must be aware that your use of the word denier is extremely confusing, since:

a) it doesn't correspond at all to the usual use of the word, which is either to characteristic climate scepticism as a whole, or to distinguish “rational” climate scepticism from some extreme form of irrational scepticism (see e.g. the use by Steve Jones in his “Impartiality in Science” report for the BBC Trust)

b) However it's used, it's always considered insulting by sceptics and leads to a rejection of your argument (see e.g. the discussion of your paper at

Thanks for that long and thoughtful reply. I won't reply in detail until I've read the whole report and your other reference on Clumsy Solutions.

I wasn't after your complete data, but simply the question(s) which divided your different subsample(s) into believers/warmists and sceptics/deniers, together with basic information like sample size and percentages responses to each question.

From what you say above, it seems that your “deniers” are not sceptics at all, but rather a subset of believers who don't live up to their beliefs in some way – people displaying some kind of cognitive dissonance, in other words.

You must be aware that your use of the word denier is extremely confusing, since:

a) it doesn't correspond at all to the usual use of the word, which is either to characteristic climate scepticism as a whole, or to distinguish “rational” climate scepticism from some extreme form of irrational scepticism (see e.g. the use by Steve Jones in his “Impartiality in Science” report for the BBC Trust)

b) However it's used, it's always considered insulting by sceptics and leads to a rejection of your argument (see e.g. the discussion of your paper at

But, Jonathan, you published a paper part of which was based on the findings of research. But you refuse to publish the questionnaire and findings. That, not to put too fine a point on it, is poor practice.

I agree, and that due diligence was taken, it just has to be revisited, and in the context of my other work I see that task as high in importance but low in urgency.

Guenier

10th July 2014

I believe that there are only two public figures with views that are broadly similar to mine: Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson. Neither, I think, has or is likely to indulge in gratuitous insult. Sadly that would appear not to be true of some of those who disagree with them.

Even your paper got pretty close to gratuitous insult of Lawson's GWPF - see my response.